@Yoyoyozo
for your first point, I couldn't tell if it was direct towards me so i responded to it anyways ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"As for the part I *did* direct to you, I'm not sure you understand the concept of the means and factors of production. The idea that wealth is zero-sum holds true no matter how much it grows. A person who is poor cannot simply create wealth. It takes land, labor, and capital to do that, things that the upper class control the majority of, either directly as for land and capital, or indirectly, which involves literally deciding the price of labor in most instances. In fact, if minimum wage laws weren't a thing, the wages of most jobs would be decided nearly entirely by the business owners."
the minimum wage is a band aid. the disease is an uncompetitive job market. because of monopolistic behavior: much of which is either directly subsidized by government, or unintentionally supported by regulation thats kills small businesses, it is true that business owners have an unfair advantage on what determines the wage.
there's been an increasing constituency of people who wish to see a much larger minimum wage but this has long term failures
there are labor:capitol intensive jobs. for labor intensive jobs, either a country is not industrialized and does not posses much capital (machinery that creates something) or it is a product that necessitates human elements (massage therapists are much more labor intensive than capital intensive)
for capital intensive jobs, automation makes humans obsolete, but because of both maintenance for machines and the still non-mechanizable products that are in high demand, this can create high wage jobs.
for the labor intensive industry, the higher the minimum wage, the more pressure for automation (and thus lay offs), but once that upper bound of maximum current automation is reached, then only profit margins will be affected by minimum wage.
take building cars: as the minimum wage has risen, automation has skyrocketed, creating only a few highly specialized maintenance jobs. this of course happened over a century, and is still happening today (a perpetual adjustment period)
the problem with forcing a 15$ minimum wage in our current environment is primarily outsourcing, but let's assume we're the only country ever, and nobody else can affect us. let's also assume there is NO possible extra room for automation.
if these two conditions can be met, then an increase in the minimum wage will have the desired affect of cutting profit margins, and increasing employee earnings.
however, this causes other adverse problems.
1. investors pull out when profits are low
2. if you're getting an 8% profit margin from an activity, but min. wage cuts that margin to 5%, you're going to look for a more profitable activity.
3. hiring freezes and lay offs become a LOT more frequent, when employers don't have a profit buffer. if there's a drop in market shares, they could react rashly to what is actually a short term problem. low profits means more volatility in decision making.
there are more problems, but this is WITH the first two conditions of no outsourcing and no more possible automation being met. those two alone occur quite frequently.
this is not to say a minimum isn't necessary, but giant spikes in the minimum wage almost always hurt industries, that employ the most people. this is why we see the highest income inequality and unemployment rates in cities with the highest minimum wages.
stopping immigration altogether is a little troubling because there's a lot of demand for high-skilled laborers... but perhaps our universities will step up.
because industries are so different from one another, this is why i can never get on board with the Bernie "minimum 15$ wage) line, because it's so hilarious overreaching.
https://www.dol.gov/whd/industry.htm
the minimum wage itself is not a solution that can be maintained.
in a society in which employers compete for laborers, as well as laborers competing for employers, we'd have a much higher market wage. this would also increase income mobility, and increase wealth creation.
that solves your "scarcity" problem. beyond that, all i would say is that people should still have the right to basic sustenance farming. if they want to enter into contracts and work less strenuously for more wealth, that's their prerogative, but i don't want to hear complains about abuse if freedom is actually achieved.
"You make references to the future about how everyone's needs could be met, but my point is that it isn't the case now. You can't respond to a criticism about a system with the "well it could work in the near future maybe possibly" "
um... no that's actually a 100% valid response, but not in the way you put it. yes we have intense inadequacies with property rights and scarcity now, but that's due to people obtaining monopolies over vast amounts of resources.
i also spoke on how our current progression in terms of innovation is leading us TO such a state as we speak. if you want to start redistributing things prematurely, then i need only to looked at Orthodox Marxists:
Those followers of Karl Marx who interpret his writings as indicating that historical events are determined by economic conditions. They insist that revolutions against capitalism can only occur when economic conditions are "ripe"-when countries are highly industrialized but experience severe economic depressions resulting in widespread economic unemployment and deprivation, prompting workers to revolt.
even Marx knew that redistribution destroyed creation mechanisms. if you want MBI, you need to wait until we have the correct industrial framework. what's the best way of achieving this industrial framework? wealth creation and innovation. i.e. NOT redistribution mechanisms.
and here's a challenge for you: find me ONE monopoly, that didn't somehow receive government assistance through subsidization or regulation of competition, and manage to cheat its way to power.
i've issued this challenge dozens of times, and i still haven't ever gotten an answer. naturally occurring monopolies are a phenomena that no living economics has ever observed, except on micro-geographic scales.
"You argue that it is morally depraved to have the upper class monopolize a key resource of human survival like water, and that the upper class achieves its wealth through hard work with entrepreneurialism, but I'd like to press your ideas a little further."
NOOOOOOOT quite. i'm saying that i don't want to attack the hard workers, but i already recognized that many companies exhibit monopolistic behavior. of course these companies are universally propped up by government laws, regulations and subsidies, so my argument still stands.
"Because of the idea of the inheritance of land and capital, it is also morally depraved to have the upper class monopolize land and capital. Sure they use their own grit to generate wealth through entrepreneurialism instead of labor, but they were literally given 2 of factors of production as a birthright."
1. capital cannot be monopolized, except by patent. there are plenty of institutions ready to make loans (at amazingly low rates) for new capital, at high risk margins nowadays. saying capital is monopolized is supremely misinformed.
2. an actually good point on land monopolization. this is why i've actually proposed a geography-based tax, for those who obtain massive amounts of land but do not use it. i think we have common ground here.
3. it's not a birthright. many children don't inherit their parent's companies or business, where most wealth is tied up for the top income percentiles.
4. what they DO generally inherit are assets, not factors of production.
"Just as everyone has the right to water and essentials, everyone should have the opportunity to greater wealth than just the basics. this idea has already been explored with the education system. Some people can become better laborers through education and can sellt their labor to higher paying markets, like becoming a doctor."
you're using positive rights, not negative rights.
you DO NOT have a right to water being handed to you for free. clean water is a process that requires labor, and you have no right to demand labor from someone else free of charge, that is slavery.
you DO have the right to prevent monopolies over scarce water. that is an action that you as an individual must partake in.
you DO NOT have a right to greater wealth beyond sustenance, in fact you do not have any intrinsic right to sustenance goods.
you DO have a right to create wealth beyond sustenance, as well as sustenance goods.
every time you use a positive right, you're stripping another human being of their rights. every time you promise something for free, you are actually promising someone else's labor for free.
you are allowed to go out into the world and pursue something greater than the basics. that does not mean it will simply be handed to you.
"But to start a business and create wealth is still astronomically harder than to continue a business and keep the wheel cranking."
that doesn't make one more or less moral than the other. if i work hard and create something, i am allowed to bestow that creation onto those whom i love. simply because someone else is incapable of producing the same level of wealth as me, does not mean i MUST subsidize the difference in-between our two levels of capability.
and on a second note: YES OH MY FUCKING GOD STARTING BUSINESSES IS HARD NOWADAYS.
is that due to excessive overregulation, where thousands if not tens of thousands (depending on your craft) of documents of legal code must be sorted through simply to start a business, and that is before you are met with the complicated nuances of federal vs state vs county codes, and also before you have to deal with local government corruption, and EVERYTHING ELSE that an excess of bureaucracy breeds?
economic freedom, the ability to create a job and create wealth is ESSENTIAL for the poor in this country. i'm dealing with dozens of labor problems everyday in economics classes, and how anyone can celebrate our current job market... it's causing the problems you've alluded to